Rental e-scooters to be made legal on roads in Great Britain from Saturday

[ProfessorDavey]

It's also worth noting that the lights are required to be fitted no more than 1500mm from the floor, so all those adults with lights only on their helmets are probably in breach of the requirements.

In my experience people who have helmet lights do so in addition to more traditionally mounted lights.

[Outrider]

In my experience people who have helmet lights do so in addition to more traditionally mounted lights.

I tend to find there's a mix - I probably don't pay enough attention to the numbers to be able to say which is more, but there's enough of each that I'd have to if I wanted to make a judgement.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I tend to find there's a mix - I probably don't pay enough attention to the numbers to be able to say which is more, but there's enough of each that I'd have to if I wanted to make a judgement.

O.

My experience is commuting in London and I think it is rare to see someone with a helmet light without other lights. The helmet-light cyclist is typically lit up like a christmas tree

Out of interest - I wonder what the law says about the Boris bike front lights which project an image of a bike symbol onto the road some distance in front of the rider.

[Outrider]

My experience is commuting in London and I think it is rare to see someone with a helmet light without other lights. The helmet-light cyclist is typically lit up like a christmas tree

Out of interest - I wonder what the law says about the Boris bike front lights which project an image of a bike symbol onto the road some distance in front of the rider.

The pattern of light isn't specified - the restrictions are on mounting height, intensity and a reference to another standard for the interpretation of 'white' as a light colour (I don't have access to the referenced standard to check what it says).

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The pattern of light isn't specified - the restrictions are on mounting height, intensity and a reference to another standard for the interpretation of 'white' as a light colour (I don't have access to the referenced standard to check what it says).

O.

Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.

I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.

[Outrider]

Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.

The current requirement only applies,  I think, to bikes made after 1998, but more tellingly the lights are only required between sunset and sunrise, and there are some cyclists who would suggest that they never use the bike at those times.

I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.

If you're buying a racing bike you don't want any additional weight or drag, and you have a reasonable argument that you're not likely to be using it in the dark.  If you're buying a kids bike you don't want the extra expense on something they're going to grow out of, especially as they're also perhaps not going to use it at night.  And then you get the fact that some people will already have lights from their previous bike, some will want LEDS, some will want flashing, some may (though I don't know why) want a dynamo and it's not a high enough cost item for those sorts of options to be viable from the manufacturer.  That said, I think Halfords, Evans and the like are perhaps missing a trick by not pushing the compliance angle at least a little.

I don't actually cycle any more - I used to commute, but my current job is WAY too far to ride - so it may be that these stores are doing better than I think at this.

O.

[Steve H]

Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.

I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.

racing cyclists want their bikes to be as light as possible, so don't fit lights during the day.
As a matter of fact, the non-fitting of lights to bikes is traditionally British: in Europe, bikes other than lightweights always have come with lights pre-fitted - often dynamo ones, which are more popular in Europe than here.

[ProfessorDavey]

The current requirement only applies,  I think, to bikes made after 1998, but more tellingly the lights are only required between sunset and sunrise, and there are some cyclists who would suggest that they never use the bike at those times.

Some people don't drive at night, but you cannot buy a car without lights.

If you're buying a racing bike you don't want any additional weight or drag, and you have a reasonable argument that you're not likely to be using it in the dark.  If you're buying a kids bike you don't want the extra expense on something they're going to grow out of, especially as they're also perhaps not going to use it at night.  And then you get the fact that some people will already have lights from their previous bike, some will want LEDS, some will want flashing, some may (though I don't know why) want a dynamo and it's not a high enough cost item for those sorts of options to be viable from the manufacturer.  That said, I think Halfords, Evans and the like are perhaps missing a trick by not pushing the compliance angle at least a little.

Sure people can always remove or replace factory fitted parts with other bits and pieces of their choice, but that isn't really an argument for not having them fitted in the first place. Given that it is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights of a particular spec then it seems strange that there is no legal requirement for any new bike sold to have those fitted as standard. Given the bulk nature of those components I suspect it would add a very small cost to the bike for a cheap but legal pair of lights.

[ProfessorDavey]

racing cyclists want their bikes to be as light as possible, so don't fit lights during the day.

So the buyer can just remove the lights themselves if they are concerned about the weight. That would be up to them - but to sell a bike which cannot be legally ridden on the road except between the hours of sunrise and sunset seems odd to me.

As a matter of fact, the non-fitting of lights to bikes is traditionally British: in Europe, bikes other than lightweights always have come with lights pre-fitted - often dynamo ones, which are more popular in Europe than here.

Indeed - and I suspect most bikes sold in the UK aren't exclusively for racing purposes, but are intended for a range of uses at a range of different times of day and night. So why not sell them in a legally compliant state for use at any time.

[Outrider]

Some people don't drive at night, but you cannot buy a car without lights.

Cars are, in the main, utilitarian, people use them as tools. Bikes are far more commonly used for recreational purposes.

Sure people can always remove or replace factory fitted parts with other bits and pieces of their choice, but that isn't really an argument for not having them fitted in the first place. Given that it is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights of a particular spec then it seems strange that there is no legal requirement for any new bike sold to have those fitted as standard. Given the bulk nature of those components I suspect it would add a very small cost to the bike for a cheap but legal pair of lights.

I wasn't trying to suggest that it was the direct influence on the law - the market for bikes is a different one from cars, and the manufacturers would likely object to having to elevate costs for the extras only for a notable portion of their customers to complain that they don't want a number of the extras.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Cars are, in the main, utilitarian, people use them as tools. Bikes are far more commonly used for recreational purposes.

True, but the proportion of cyclists (even recreational) cyclists who never intend using a bike except in the hours of daylight must be pretty small.

I wasn't trying to suggest that it was the direct influence on the law - the market for bikes is a different one from cars, and the manufacturers would likely object to having to elevate costs for the extras only for a notable portion of their customers to complain that they don't want a number of the extras.

But if the law was altered rapidly the bike buying public would get used to it. So we'd no more have buyers complaining about the lights being automatically included as we do now about the reflectors (both front, rear and pedal) being automatically included. I suspect some cyclists don't want these either but, I think, they are always included.

[Outrider]

True, but the proportion of cyclists (even recreational) cyclists who never intend using a bike except in the hours of daylight must be pretty small.

I don't know.  Although I travel into London (normally) on a weekly basis, the overwhelming majority of the cyclists I encounter are in enormously long columns on the rural roads around where I live of a Saturday or Sunday, and I suspect they're out mid-morning, pub-lunch and home in time for dinner.

But if the law was altered rapidly the bike buying public would get used to it. So we'd no more have buyers complaining about the lights being automatically included as we do now about the reflectors (both front, rear and pedal) being automatically included. I suspect some cyclists don't want these either but, I think, they are always included.

If you get a high-end bike (so my brother informs me, who's into that sort of thing) you get the frame and then buy the running gear and the pedals and the like separately, but that's probably just for the 'all the gear, no idea' MAMIL's like him.

You could push a wholesale regulation change through, but if the mission at the moment is to at least appear to be encouraging people onto bikes, doing anything that could be intepreted as pushing up costs or making things more difficult is not going to wash.  It's not that a law change wouldn't work, I think, it's just a lack of any strong will and the potential for backlash that the current government doesn't need.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know.  Although I travel into London (normally) on a weekly basis, the overwhelming majority of the cyclists I encounter are in enormously long columns on the rural roads around where I live of a Saturday or Sunday, and I suspect they're out mid-morning, pub-lunch and home in time for dinner.

True - but I imagine most of those weekend cyclists probably have another bike at home that they use for getting about/commuting etc.

If you get a high-end bike (so my brother informs me, who's into that sort of thing) you get the frame and then buy the running gear and the pedals and the like separately, but that's probably just for the 'all the gear, no idea' MAMIL's like him.

But you have to be a pretty serious cyclist to be doing that - starting with a frame and choosing components isn't what most people buying a bike will do - they will buy a ready made up bike, and if bought new this (I believe) is required to be fitted with a bell, front and rear reflectors, pedal reflectors and wheel reflectors as standard. I can't see many people complaining about those being fitted as standard, so why not also include entry level (but legal) front and back lights.

You could push a wholesale regulation change through, but if the mission at the moment is to at least appear to be encouraging people onto bikes, doing anything that could be intepreted as pushing up costs or making things more difficult is not going to wash.  It's not that a law change wouldn't work, I think, it's just a lack of any strong will and the potential for backlash that the current government doesn't need.

When implemented at scale I think the cost is marginal at most - and the same could be said for reflectors etc (see above). I suspect most people will buy lights at some point - actually having them fitted as standard will likely be cheaper than buying them separately. And it would reduce confusion over which lights are, and are not, legal.